15sunrises

<p>This is something that I've now noticed in 2 shots on my 40D. I don't really know what it could be and was hoping that somebody could give me some insight. I'm thinking that it might just be the noise pattern working out to look like this or maybe the dark frame subtraction didn't work quite as expected.</p>

<p>Exif for first shot:</p>

<p>Make: Canon<br />Model: Canon EOS 40D<br />Date/Time: 2009:11:19 23:11:30.01<br />Program: Manual<br />Metering: Center Weighted<br />Exposure Time: 103 sec<br />Ev Bias: None<br />F Number: 3.5<br />Focal Length: 17mm<br />ISO: 640<br />Contrast: Normal<br />Saturation: Normal<br />Sharpening: Normal<br />Lens: 17-50mm <br />White Bal: Auto<br />AF Mode: Manual</p>

<p>Exif for second shot:</p>

<p>Make: Canon<br />Model: Canon EOS 40D<br />Date/Time: 2009:11:26 20:41:40.01<br />Program: Manual<br />Metering: Center Weighted<br />Exposure Time: 30 sec<br />Ev Bias: None<br />F Number: 3.2<br />Focal Length: 17mm<br />ISO: 640<br />Contrast: Normal<br />Saturation: Normal<br />Sharpening: Normal<br />Lens: 17-50mm <br />White Bal: Auto<br />AF Mode: Manual</p>

<p>Here are the shots with the area hilighted that I'm talking about:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.15sunrises.com/images/ind.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.15sunrises.com/images/cliff.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>While I'm not totally worried since it's not exhibited in all shots, I'd like to know what it could potentially be, to try and avoid the problem when I don't have multiple opportunities for a shot.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>I posted a few responses to somebody who had similar questions a little while ago. I'll just paste them here, hopefully they are of some help.</p>

<p>The biggest issue you will find in the end, in dark areas, is that the landscape isn't bright enough, not the stars. Here's one of my examples of a single exposure taken with the 10-20mm sigma, wide open, 30 seconds at ISO1600:<br /><img src="http://www.15sunrises.com/images/20090316170309_st.jpg" alt="" /><br />As you can see, the trees are still totally black, even with the 30 second exposure.<br>

Here's a 160 second tracked exposure at ISO 800, f/4. You can see that now the foreground is blurry, but the exposure still wasn't enough to bring any details out in the trees, etc.:<br /><img src="http://www.15sunrises.com/images/20090318114139_st_tecin2.jpg" alt="" /><br />I realized that with the limits of my 30D/40D where even ISO1600 is unacceptable for me, that I'd need to stack exposures. You also need to keep in mind (which I'm sure that you have) the exposure limits in order to keep stars as points, rather than start to streak.<br>

Eventually I invested in a tracking mount and now stack exposures of the foreground/background in order to better achieve what I want. Unfortunately, I haven't practiced this technique nearly enough and am still a bit disappointed with the outcome. I've found that if the foreground is too bright, the image begins to look way too 'doctored' because of the lack of contrast in non-moonlit night landscapes. This is probably the best I've done so far:<br /><img src="http://www.15sunrises.com/images/20090414144602_tksm.jpg" alt="" /><br />I would suggest going to the darkest site you can find, and seeing what you can achieve with the lens you have right now. f/4.5 is enough to capture a lot of data in the sky, the problem would then be properly exposing the foreground in order to combine the images without them looking too fake.<br>

Here's my follow up as well outlining some options:</p>

<p>1) take several shorter shots and stack them in a program like Deep Sky Stacker. It's easy to use, and will bring out some details that you didn't know were there. The website contains some decent information on how to use the program and what exactly you need to do to get the results you are looking for.</p>

<p>2) take a slightly shorter exposure and push in post. With some smart noise reduction + sharpening, you can push in post and still get decent results. I usually push 1/2 - 1 stop on star pictures because I want to keep the stars bright without them being overwhelmed by light pollution. Also keep in mind that when taking star shots, the LCD is almost useless for checking exposure. In the dark, it looks far brighter and will make you think that you have a properly exposed image, when in fact, it will be underexposed.</p>

<p>3) the foreground will almost never be properly exposed in these situations compared to the sky, simply because there is hardly any light hitting it. With a full moon you can get some decent results with a 30second exposure, but again, then the stars start to trail. So far, as I mentioned, I've found the best way to do it is to combine exposures, there really isn't a way around it. There are people out there with 5Ds and 5DIIs shooting at really high ISOs and getting it in one shot, but again, some of these start to look fake.</p>

<p>Also, you NEED to shoot in RAW, I'm not sure if you're doing this already. You retain a lot more detail and information and it makes pushing the exposure a lot more viable. Hopefully this helps.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What a perfect way to generate hits to a website. Come up with a testing method that isn't quite right, yet shows a controversial result, then post the results and wait for the tidal wave of responses.</p>

<p>Brilliant.</p>

<p>Hey Jason,</p>

<p>I took a look at your photo, as you can see, it's clear that at 15mm on a crop camera, 30 seconds is too long of an exposure. You have a few options here:</p>

<p>1) take several shorter shots and stack them in a program like Deep Sky Stacker. It's easy to use, and will bring out some details that you didn't know were there. The website contains some decent information on how to use the program and what exactly you need to do to get the results you are looking for.</p>

<p>2) take a slightly shorter exposure and push in post. With some smart noise reduction + sharpening, you can push in post and still get decent results. I usually push 1/2 - 1 stop on star pictures because I want to keep the stars bright without them being overwhelmed by light pollution. Also keep in mind that when taking star shots, the LCD is almost useless for checking exposure. In the dark, it looks far brighter and will make you think that you have a properly exposed image, when in fact, it will be underexposed.</p>

<p>3) the foreground will almost never be properly exposed in these situations compared to the sky, simply because there is hardly any light hitting it. With a full moon you can get some decent results with a 30second exposure, but again, then the stars start to trail. So far, as I mentioned, I've found the best way to do it is to combine exposures, there really isn't a way around it. There are people out there with 5Ds and 5DIIs shooting at really high ISOs and getting it in one shot, but again, I think that these start to look fake.</p>

<p>Also, you NEED to shoot in RAW, I'm not sure if you're doing this already. You retain a lot more detail and information and it makes pushing the exposure a lot more viable. Hopefully this helps.</p>

<p>Unreal, thanks for the link! Will save me a lot of time...</p>

<p>I found the original site where I discovered some of the portolio options available, unfortunately there aren't available where I live (in the Czech Republic) that I can find.</p>

<p>Also, it isn't totally necessary for the portfolio to support above A4 size, but it would be nice. Here's the site:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/cp/olympus/technology/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003602779">http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/cp/olympus/technology/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003602779</a></p>

<p>I'm hoping that somebody can maybe provide me with some budget options for a portfolio of photos (about 15-25) which could hold photos that would be between A4 and A3 in size? I've found some that are available in the United States, but unfortunately can't find anything that is available internationally.</p>

<p>What kind of presentation style should I use for the photographs in the portfolio? Is it common to title the images, add a signature, have some text accompanying them? While I've sold some prints before, it's mostly come from people who see the images on my website, and I'm not quite sure how to present them in their physical format (I've always been very satisfied with the prints).</p>

<p>In terms of the actual technical aspects of the printing, does anybody have any specific recommendations for the type of printing I should look into for longevity and quality?</p>

<p>I live in a city which has been photographed millions upon millions of times, from every angle imaginable, but I'd like to think that I offer something slightly different with some of my photos and am wondering what would be the best way to start promoting myself, hopefully getting a proper portfolio together will be a good first step.</p>

<p>thanks for the help.</p>

<p>Might be better off just investing in a Micro 4/3 camera, something I'm looking into to get more access to different manual focus lenses.</p>

<p>Good stuff, I have these fuzzies as well in some shots, never checked them all though. Haven't seen the stars in forever...</p>

<p>This is a problem that I constantly deal with in high contrast scenes. I simply underexpose a bit and push in post, then apply some lighter noise reduction to help with the noise in the shadows. Who knows when digital will be able to resolve this issue with sensors that have a wider dynamic range.</p>

<p>I'm guessing that the deal doesn't apply to the 7D? Might be your best play in the end if it does.</p>

<p>Quite an incredible set of gear you have there. </p>

<p>I'd suggest trying more real world tests with the techniques listed above to try and narrow down whether the issue is user or camera. </p>

<p>If you're going to do specific 'focus tests', I'd suggest doing them on a tripod so you eliminate motion blur. If you're going to do sharpness tests, then once again again do them on a tripod, with the lens stopped down at various apertures and compare.</p>

<p>Thanks Frank. I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out what will give me the best results. Thanks for letting me know that the closer I get, the more 'fisheye' the drop will become. I think I'm going to work at this distance for a while and see what kind of results I get before anything further rather than going and getting stuff before having a complete grasp on what the effects will be. My goal is to get the inside of the drop sharp, moreso that the other elements in the foreground.</p>

<p>The shots are in Prague.</p>

<p>Thank you Brien, I'm not looking to get too much closer, but when I look at my images above, it seems to me as though the OOF areas are just in focus enough to be more distracting than I would like. I'll continue to experiment, maybe buy a couple more tubes, and keep trying.</p>

<p>I've been trying some new stuff involving macro photography, since the weather has changed and I'm looking for new inspiration. Currently, I'm using an Industar 61 L/Z close focus lens (nearly macro) with a set of 3 M42 extension tubes. In all honesty, I'm fairly satisfied with the results so far, but I'm wondering what kind of options I have to get some more DOF.</p>

<p>While I realize this might not be possible, I'm looking for any tips (maybe even composition wise) that would help improve my macro photos. Here are two examples of what I'm looking to do, both shot at f/11 with all 3 tubes being used. I'm wondering if any other macro options would allow me to get <strong>more</strong> DOF at the same magnification. I've done some research, and it seems as though for any given magnification, the DOF will be the same, or is this totally wrong? </p>

<p>I'm also wondering what kind of options I have to get more magnification with the same setup...</p>

<p>Thanks.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10121032-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="453" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10121056-lg.jpg" alt="" width="534" height="800" /></p>

<p>Something I definitely need to look into, although I find a blower does enough of the job for me. No way I could ever send my camera away for a few days, I'd rather deal with cloning out spots than miss something special!</p>

<p>Agree with many here. 10mm is tough to use for me as well, now selling my Sigma 10-20 simply because I never use it. But it all depends on the photographer.</p>

<p>Nice shot Bob. The Canon 500mm looks incredible, let me know if you ever need somebody to take care of it.</p>

<p>I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by exploring all of the possibilities on your 400D and outgrowing them. What exactly doesn't it allow you to do that you are looking to do?</p>

<p>What about just moving up to the 40D? It's a great camera, has some additional features, and you could get it for much cheaper than the 50D or 5D2. At the same time you could still use all of your glass and get a better idea of what you're looking for. You could also use the money saved to maybe get some more glass options, just some food for thought.</p>

<p>I second the 17-50 Tamron recommendation. I use mine all the time and love it.</p>

<p>In CS2, if you go up to View -> Proof Setup, and set it to Monitor RGB, do you still have the same issue?</p>

<p>A good stock photo site that offers free images (read the conditions for each image) is <a href="http://www.sxc.hu">www.sxc.hu</a> . Maybe you could find something there.</p>

<p>Just don't get the Cokin, trust.</p>

<p>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=20613354</p>

<p>I'm not usually a 'you need the best gear' kind of person, but when it comes to filters, buy the best you can afford. I've screwed up many a photo thanks to my Cokin ND grad filters which had a horrible magenta cast that was impossible to eliminate in post.</p>

<p>I would almost suggest getting 1 5DII and 1 7D. It's almost like having a teleconverter except without the loss of speed or quality, might be nice to have the variety?</p>

<blockquote>

 

<p>Having owned a 30D that has serious noise banding issues that begin at ISO 400 and get progressively worse the higher you go (or the more you push in post), I definitely have no problems with this sort of test. I like shooting a lot of low-light, and I don't mind noise at all. What I *don't* like is when my images look like they were shot with a crappy mobile phone camera because there's ugly horizontal bands of noise in the shadows.<br>

All of the 7D pictures I've seen until now seem to lack this banding noise, but you're damned right this will be one of the first things I test when mine finally arrives tomorrow.</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

<p>The 30D only has 'serious noise banding issues' if the image is improperly exposed. You can create noise at ISO100 by underexposing and pushing in post, just get it right in camera and you won't have to deal with the banding issue. If you have noise in the shadows after post, it's because you didn't expose for the shadows, the 7D won't magically fix the mistakes a photographer makes.</p>